OK. I was haveing a conversation about the war in Iraq with my friend and i asked him if he thins we should be fighting there. He replied:

"hell no. originally we thought that they may have been harboring weaps of mass destruction and thats why we sent the UN guys there to check shit out. they found nothing and we invaded anyway. it also seems like the objective of the war is changing every fucking month, ranging from originally finding weaps of mass destruction, then to liberation, then to finding terrorists. we should have said we fucked up and moved our ass out, and since we didnt, we are losing quite a few precious allies. not to mention the cost of the fucking thing. it was originally 1.6billion which seemed like a shitload but then turned out to the present day deficit of over 50billlion for that goddamned ''war''.....a little off? fuck yes"

I am not sure how I feel about this...Well, regardless of the original intentions (that is the weapons of mass destruction and their potential lack of basis in fact (remember, just because you don't see something doesn't mean it's not there, though it makes the probability slim)), I believe that we have something of a duty to stay until Iraq is stabilized at least. Given our dependance of foreign oil, I suppose staying in Iraq is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, leaving Iraq leaves it to civil war (as if it isn't already in one...), but on the other hand, staying there destabilizes the region and leads to attempts on say... Saudi Arabian refineries (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/24/saudi.refinery/). I, however, believe it's still worth it more to stay than to leave, even if my faith in our President is fading more and more by the day. As for the original reasoning, I agree with the general sentiment that *IF* the 'proof' of weapons of mass destruction is shown to be falsified (despite the Downing Street Memo, it certainly doesn't seem to be 'shown' within a shadow of a doubt that the claims were lies. Remember: Even President Clinton was concerned about the possibility of WMD programs in Iraq...) that whoever is responsible should be held liable for their actions. So I guess in summary, I think there is a purpose to being in Iraq, but we need to move out when possible, without necessarily 'cutting and running,' and avoiding another Vietnam-style aftermath of our 'fleeing.'
Please discuss. Do you think we should fight until their government and military are in well working action, or should we withraw?

lol it was a one or the other answer...thanks for replying and making me feel special though :)

skaterceej!

03-04-2006, 08:50 PM

Can someone intellegent please contibute to this, im doing a debate on it and i need to know some more angles of the debate.

HabitatSkater

03-04-2006, 09:01 PM

Should we withdraw right now? No, we screwed that country up and if we left now, we would only fuck it up even more. We shouldn't have been there in the first place for 3 simple reasons. 1) Saddam was not and would have never been a threat to us. 2) Usama and Saddam were not linked to one another in any way. 3) Iraq did not have the technological advances to produce these "weapons of mass destruction."

What we should have done was given the UN enough time to actually inspect Iraq. We went in and overthrew Saddam illegally and without the UN's consent. We should have gone after North Korea, a country who for years has been showing off and coming out and saying that they in fact have weapons of mass destruction, or why not Saudia Arabia? The majority of the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi's.

skaterceej!

03-04-2006, 09:22 PM

Should we withdraw right now? No, we screwed that country up and if we left now, we would only fuck it up even more. We shouldn't have been there in the first place for 3 simple reasons. 1) Saddam was not and would have never been a threat to us. 2) Usama and Saddam were not linked to one another in any way. 3) Iraq did not have the technological advances to produce these "weapons of mass destruction."

What we should have done was given the UN enough time to actually inspect Iraq. We went in and overthrew Saddam illegally and without the UN's consent. We should have gone after North Korea, a country who for years has been showing off and coming out and saying that they in fact have weapons of mass destruction, or why not Saudia Arabia? The majority of the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi's.

ok i understand your view but if we had not gone into iraq do you think terrorism would have ceased to exist in the us. what i find hard to believe is that if we did nothing terrorism would stop.

HabitatSkater

03-04-2006, 09:26 PM

ok i understand your view but if we had not gone into iraq do you think terrorism would have ceased to exist in the us. what i find hard to believe is that if we did nothing terrorism would stop.
Terrorism will never cease to exist. Even with this "war on terror" it won't cease to exist. Why don't we start concentrating on domestic terror groups such as the KKK or the Neo-Nazi movement? Or the Crips or the Bloods? Why go into a country that doesn't even pose a threat to us?

skaterceej!

03-04-2006, 09:31 PM

Terrorism will never cease to exist. Even with this "war on terror" it won't cease to exist. Why don't we start concentrating on domestic terror groups such as the KKK or the Neo-Nazi movement? Or the Crips or the Bloods? Why go into a country that doesn't even pose a threat to us?

yes we need to worry about them too but the whole 9/11 thing. Can you positively say that that would never happen again? i dont think the neo nazis or the kkk are going to do that much damage to u.s. property and kill thousands of people. And if we didnt invade iraq as a way to stop this behaviour then what is you alternative to war?

hullo

03-05-2006, 03:52 PM

i love cheesy puffs too!!!
OK. I was haveing a conversation about the war in Iraq with my friend and i asked him if he thins we should be fighting there. He replied:

"hell no. originally we thought that they may have been harboring weaps of mass destruction and thats why we sent the UN guys there to check shit out. they found nothing and we invaded anyway. it also seems like the objective of the war is changing every fucking month, ranging from originally finding weaps of mass destruction, then to liberation, then to finding terrorists. we should have said we fucked up and moved our ass out, and since we didnt, we are losing quite a few precious allies. not to mention the cost of the fucking thing. it was originally 1.6billion which seemed like a shitload but then turned out to the present day deficit of over 50billlion for that goddamned ''war''.....a little off? fuck yes"

I am not sure how I feel about this...Well, regardless of the original intentions (that is the weapons of mass destruction and their potential lack of basis in fact (remember, just because you don't see something doesn't mean it's not there, though it makes the probability slim)), I believe that we have something of a duty to stay until Iraq is stabilized at least. Given our dependance of foreign oil, I suppose staying in Iraq is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, leaving Iraq leaves it to civil war (as if it isn't already in one...), but on the other hand, staying there destabilizes the region and leads to attempts on say... Saudi Arabian refineries (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/24/saudi.refinery/). I, however, believe it's still worth it more to stay than to leave, even if my faith in our President is fading more and more by the day. As for the original reasoning, I agree with the general sentiment that *IF* the 'proof' of weapons of mass destruction is shown to be falsified (despite the Downing Street Memo, it certainly doesn't seem to be 'shown' within a shadow of a doubt that the claims were lies. Remember: Even President Clinton was concerned about the possibility of WMD programs in Iraq...) that whoever is responsible should be held liable for their actions. So I guess in summary, I think there is a purpose to being in Iraq, but we need to move out when possible, without necessarily 'cutting and running,' and avoiding another Vietnam-style aftermath of our 'fleeing.'
Please discuss. Do you think we should fight until their government and military are in well working action, or should we withraw?

akkaquill

03-05-2006, 04:15 PM

the thing everyone overlooks is the resolutions that the UN passed saying that saddam had to let inspectors in to decide whether or not his country was attempting to create weapons of mass destruction. saddam repeatedly refused to comply with these resolutions after agreeing that he would after the first gulf war, thus violating the agreement and risking being attacked by the UN. after his first violation the UN was supposed to invade to make sure that iraq wasnt a threat, but they didnt. finally when bush was made president we did what was supposed to be done 20 resolutions ago, which was invade. the reason we're in iraq isnt because we thought they had weapons of mass destruction, its because saddam violated the resolutions which he agreed to comply with after the first gulf war. everyone in the UN had a part in this war; not just the US.

BandagedSkater

03-05-2006, 04:48 PM

ok i understand your view but if we had not gone into iraq do you think terrorism would have ceased to exist in the us. what i find hard to believe is that if we did nothing terrorism would stop.

You can't fight terrorism because it is a concept. Racism, religions, and other things cannot be fought and you can never destroy them. That is why I hate the war on terrorism because we cannot defeat something that is an idea and not a physical manifestation. It will be a never ending war and even after the war on terrorism we still have terror here. Some from our own citizens which is another reason I disagree with it is because we have people inside the United States bombing abortion clinics, burning down churches(there’s been like 13 in one week in my state all over the news). They are not recognized as terrorist but are called extremist and other things but never terrorist. The government has created the illusion that all terrorist wear turbans, and are middle-eastern. Another thing we never found the weapons in Iraq but we still went. Its not like they attacked us and bombed the twin towers. It was a radical group of terrorist known as Alqaeda I don't know how to spell it. It’s something like that. We still haven't found Osama and now that we've screwed up we must fix it. Rebuild and they must pay the billions of dollars to defend and stabilize Iraq. Hopefully they will now think twice before running off to fight terror in another part of the globe.

FG Haze

03-05-2006, 05:30 PM

psst... theres a politics forum for this

FG Haze

03-05-2006, 05:31 PM

Also, being in the position we are, we should never have bombed iraq and sent most of our troops there, Osamaland shouldve been first... also... i think now we should just finish what we started... withdrawl now will only be worse, although i dont agree with more killings and violence.

i cheat at skate

03-05-2006, 05:38 PM

Wow, i'm such a dumbass.

StarcraftLedZeppelin

03-05-2006, 05:45 PM

i havent bothered to read this yet, but this should go in the politics section.